Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The line is clear: is money being exchanged in order to promote a product? That's advertising.

The line is absolutely not clear.

Is ABC allowed to run commercials for its own shows?

ABC is owned by Disney. Is ABC allowed to run commercials for Disney shows? Is it allowed to run commericals for Disney toys?

Can ABC run commercials for Bounty paper towels, in exchange for Bounty putting ads for ABC shows on its paper towel packaging?

Literally no money is being exchanged so far.

I'm familiar with a lot of gray areas that courts regularly have to decide on. But trying to distinguish advertising from free speech sounds like the most difficult free speech question I've ever come across. People are allowed to express positive opinions about products, and even try to convince their friends, that's free speech. Trying to come up with a global definition of advertising that doesn't veer into censorship... I can't even imagine. Are you suddenly prevented from blogging about a water bottle you like, because you received a coupon for a future water bottle? Because if you use that coupon, it's effectively money exchanged. What if your blog says you wouldn't have bothered writing about the bottle, but you were so impressed with the coupon on top of everything else it got you to write?

You can argue over any of these examples, but that's the point: you're arguing, because the line isn't clear.

I agree with the general thought - doing something like this would give giant mega corporations a huge leg up from verticals.

> Can ABC run commercials for Bounty paper towels, in exchange for Bounty putting ads for ABC shows on its paper towel packaging?

I was with you until this one

Under both IRS and GAAP rules, that's equivalent to money changing hands. So in a hypothetical "no money for advertising" world, that would be over the line.

ok, what if ABC buys a 55% stake in Bounty and puts ads for them because they are the same owner now? What if it's 10% stake? Can they claim (truthfully) they want to increase the value of their stock?

You're trying to make this sound very complicated but it's not. In this world without paid advertising, ABC can advertise their own shows. They cannot advertise things for other companies, whether they own them or not.

A network of TV stations could cross-promote across all stations. Yes, that would be unfair, but no more unfair than the current situation where whoever has more money can have their ads seen everywhere. Fairness between companies isn't the goal, it's less manipulation and noise for the rest of us.

There's an example of a TV station that already has to follow these rules: the BBC.

> it's less manipulation and noise for the rest of us.

That's not what would happen.

You'd just end up with diverse companies consolidating into single companies and advertising just as much as before, but for their own products in their own media properties.

Coca-Cola will merge with a movie studio and a television network and a billboard company to put its product placement and ads everywhere in properties it just simply owns. Probably merging with Proctor-Gamble or Unilever while it's at it.

BetterHelp will merge with a bunch of supplements companies and purchase a bunch of top podcast studios, so top podcasts will continue to advertise the same exact things as before.

And so on.

It's wishful thinking to suppose that companies wouldn't find ways around this. Advertising is that powerful and important that it'll be worth it to them.

I think you articulated the vagueness very well.

One other example I was thinking was product placement. Are these characters eating pizza? Or is it Pizza Hut®™ pizza?

> Is ABC allowed to run commercials for its own shows?

Well, not if they pay employees to do it. Except that shows aren't products, they're services, so they'd be exempt from this proposal.

> Except that shows aren't products, they're services, so they'd be exempt from this proposal.

What does that mean? What's a service in this definition? Surely not in the normal definition of a "service", as in health care or tech? Like is a movie a service too?

Or do you just mean something you get for free because it's a show on their own channel? What if you had to pay for shows ala carte?

I suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_(economics). Some authors use the term "product" in opposition to "service", while others consider services to be a type of product. Not being clear about that distinction is one of the fatal flaws in imiric's proposal.

A show isn't made of matter. If you pay for it, you can't take possession of it or resell it later. If you, the buyer, aren't available at the time that it is provided, you get nothing of value out of the deal. These are attributes of services like surgery or internet connectivity, not products like antibiotics and computers. ("Health care" and "tech" are too vague to be useful.)

Getting things for free is not, as you imply, a usual attribute of services.

That makes even less sense than I thought. So things that "are not made out of matter" can be advertised. Like I can advertise YouTube, AWS, Netflix, pretty much 99% of online services, movies, a doctor practice as long as I just do diagnostics, landscaping as long as I just cut and clean. I just can't advertise anything where I'd hand you something "made out of matter". What kind of sense does that make?

It makes no sense at all, which was my point. I've criticized it at greater length in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43596993.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com